MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W193081048 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v7i1.12445

Any-Angle Path Planning for Computer Games

2011· article· en· W193081048 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Yap, Neil Burch, Robert C. Holte, Jonathan Schaeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)Motion planningComputer scienceGridRepresentation (politics)Path (computing)Set (abstract data type)Combinatorial game theoryField (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceSequential gameMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGame theoryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Path planning is a critical part of modern computer games; rare is the game where nothing moves and path planning is unneeded. A* is the workhorse for most path planning applications. Block A* is a state-of-the-art algorithm that is always faster than A* in experiments using game maps. Unlike other methods that improve upon A*'s performance, Block A* is never worse than A* nor require any knowledge of the map. In our experiments, Block A* is ideal for games with randomly generated maps, large maps, or games with a highly dynamic multi-agent environment. Furthermore, in the domain of grid-based any-angle path planning, we show that Block A* is an order of magnitude faster than the previous best any-angle path planning algorithm, Theta*. We empirically show our results using maps from Dragon Age: Origins and Starcraft. Finally, we introduce ``populated game maps'' as a new test bed that is a better approximation of real game conditions than the standard test beds of this field. The main contributions of this paper is a more rigorous set of experiments for Block A*, and introducing a new test bed (populated game maps) that is a more accurate representation of actual game conditions than the standard test beds.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital EntertainmentSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207